ATTN JMS: Article in MIT Technology Review with you
SurlyBitch
Sorry if this might be a little long. Two questions, one short, the
other...well, not really short, but both couched in the same event.
Reading through the March/April 2000 MIT Technology Review magazine
there is a piece titled "Digital Land Grab" by Henry Jenkins
(apparently an instructor there). He writes about how companies are
desperately moving into new territories to establish trademarks. Now
that they appear to have run out of original ideas, they are raiding
historical culture.
He starts off the piece with a hypothetical question about how would
we, as a culture, remember such universally known works such as "Alice
in Wonderland" if, at the beginning of the 20th century, trademark
infringements were so zealously pursued as they are today?
How would we remember such things as "The Red Queen(tm) or The Cheshire
Cat(tm)" all rights reserved McDisneyWarnerCorp (my addition) for
example? He notes that much of the fame "Alice" gained was in large
part due to the parodies, "fan fiction", and social critiques based on
the original that increased word or mouth of the Carroll's original.
To the part in which he spoke of you, I can only hope that you were
putting on your sarcasm cap and channeling for the TimeWarner
execs: "J. Michael Straczynski, executive producer of the cult
television series 'Babylon 5,' was speaking to the students in my
science fiction class at MIT. One student asked him what he thought
about 'fans,' and after a pause, he replied, 'You mean, copyright
infringers.' The remark was met with nervous laughter and mutual
misunderstanding." That's all he wrote concerning the comment.
I always was under the impression that you didn't mind the fans or
their sites. (Of course I realize that TimeWarner owns it all, but
attributing this comment to you caught my eye). Might this just be an
incorrect characterization of the session you led? I can hope that the
remark was taken out of context, but you can straighten that out for us
if you see need fit to.
Dr Jenkins goes further to warn that companies are now moving into
popular and historical culture to grab trademarks. Names such as Aladdin
(tm), Anastasia(tm), Hercules(tm) and more are all part of our common
mythology and culture, but corporations are moving to lock them into
their own pantheons of products and preclude their use elsewhere.
Do you see these things happening there in the heart of the film/TV
industry? Dr Jenkins IS a continent away, so he could be just a little
off about it. However, I find the magazine as a whole to be well
balanced and fairly written, so it made me think enough to ask.
Thanks for your time, work, and most of all, B5.
--
D. Smoot aka "SurlyBitch"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jms at B5
>putting on your sarcasm cap and channeling for the TimeWarner
>execs: "J. Michael Straczynski, executive producer of the cult
>television series 'Babylon 5,' was speaking to the students in my
>science fiction class at MIT. One student asked him what he thought
>about 'fans,' and after a pause, he replied, 'You mean, copyright
>infringers.'
>The remark was met with nervous laughter and mutual
>misunderstanding." That's all he wrote concerning the comment.
>I always was under the impression that you didn't mind the fans or
>their sites. (Of course I realize that TimeWarner owns it all, but
>attributing this comment to you caught my eye). Might this just be an
>incorrect characterization of the session you led?
I did not say "fans." I said "fan fiction." I sent a very pointedly written
note to the site correcting this some time ago; I think you will find this in
the feedback section.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
LK
wrote:
>How would we remember such things as "The Red Queen(tm) or The Cheshire
>Cat(tm)" all rights reserved McDisneyWarnerCorp (my addition) for
>example? He notes that much of the fame "Alice" gained was in large
>part due to the parodies, "fan fiction", and social critiques based on
>the original that increased word or mouth of the Carroll's original.
A slight redirect here:
"Fan fiction" doesn't sound right in regard to the _Alice_ books. Fan
fiction is using the characters in serious senario(s) as opposed to
parodies which are protected under First Amendment and have been found
overall not to violate copyrights.
You might not be old enough to remember the "Carol Burnett Show" on TV
or the age of the variety shows wherein parodies and spoofs were
eagerly awaited every week. And the "electronic" mass media tradition
goes back to radio shows e.g., "The Jack Benny Show." Though I don't
know if the shows' writers or producers had to obtain permission
before using the material. --Probably, yes, And as long as the
material was treated with respect often movie studios were pleased
with the publicity. --Not like today wherein too often "spoofs" and
"parodies" are less in good fun and tend to be, IMO of course,
pathetic or tear-it-to-shreds.
"Social critiques" do not require permission of the material creators.
I do see how the recent U.S. Patent Office nonsense of awarding a
patent on the "single-click" method of on-line purchasing is
chilling--if you're being polite; "ludicrous," if you're not-- can
stimulate trademark and copyright paranoia. --I refuse to buy
anything from Amazon.com now because of that petty minded behavior.*
I think the Patent Office must be taken to task for granting the
patent. I'm not sure how to support changing that institution, except
to urge it not to grant patents for physical behavior or physical use
of a tool.
LK
*I was also displeased when, last summer, I inadvertently and
prematurely purchased books on-line from Amazon because of their
single-click method; all I wanted was to add the books to my
"wish-list" so I could save shipping costs by ordering all at once.
Within an hour I had e-mail telling my order telling me my one book
order had been shipped, but none of the others, though they were in
stock, and I didn't remember clicking to buy. --My poor credit card.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> I did not say "fans." I said "fan fiction." I sent a very pointedly written
> note to the site correcting this some time ago; I think you will find this in
> the feedback section.
Somebody have the URL?
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
WWS
If you want to see a very good (and very topical) wide-ranging discussion
of all these issues, go to http://www.geocities.com/elian_true/
What happened: after the famous Elian picture was posted round the
world, two guys came up with a flash animation parody of it, based
on the "Superfriends" parody of the original Budweiser commercial,
"True, true". (most people have seen that one on the web by now)
The Elian versian is one of the most ROFL animations I have seen on
the net in a long, long, time!!!
But the two guys got a very nasty letter from AP, threatening to sue
them, threatening copyright infringement for use of the picture, etc.,
etc. However, it didn't work out the way AP thought it would. They
took down the video (which had been copied dozens of times already)
and instead put up the AP's cease and desist letter, which was
especially ironic since the entire parody was about an agency using
incredible overpowering force and acting like stormtroopers to squash
some people who posed no real threat to them at all. The AP's office
has been flooded with calls and e-mails criticizing them for this
action, (if you wonder how many, the websites been up about a week
and has over a million hits already) and now the site has a list of
the organizations that have voiced support. Oops, AP thought
they were tangling with a couple of Joe Schmoes, instead they knew how
to get the message out! And AP is already "expressing regret" for
handling the situation in this manner, it's a PR nightmare for them.
As far as the original video, if you wanna see it, just click here:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php3?id=266
Once that genie gets out of the bottle, he ain't ever goin
back in again.
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
It takes considerable knowledge to realize the extent of your
own ignorance. - Thomas Sowell
Andrew M Swallow
>they were tangling with a couple of Joe Schmoes, instead they knew how
>to get the message out! And AP is already "expressing regret" for
>handling the situation in this manner, it's a PR nightmare for them.
If the only cost is a 'PR nightmare' they were very lucky.
The costs could have been -
a. several million dollars of legal fees. The same as making a major movie.
The lawers will like it, but I suspect that the box office take from a couple
of Joe Schmoes is minute.
b. loss of copyright on the original film. All court cases are bets. In a
copyright case you are betting the copyright.
c. loss of all your intellectual property. Jugments by The Supreme Court can
be very wide ranging.
To put this in terms the film industry can understand. You make a childrens
film. 'The Mega-Idiot Company vs The Small Boy.' Which version would have a
higher viewing figures -
a. the big bully wins?
b. or the small boy?
Andrew Swallow